Category Archives: Section 3.2(d)(i)(1)


2 responses to “S”

  1. Diana Kimpton says:

    This clause is completely unworkable. It is impossible for an automated database system such as the one at the heart of the Google Book Settlement to indentify which books contain the same Principal Work. Different editions have totally unrelated ISBNs and may not even have the same title. I have been in touch with the database people about this and been told, ” The of linking editions is something that is continually being worked on. As mentioned in the last answer, when you file a claim as the rightsholder to a book, whether it be deemed commercially unavailable or available, you control the operative settings to the book. You may direct Google want display settings they are allowed to use for the book. ” (typo is theirs, not mine)

    I’ve also spoken to them by phone and got the impression they don’t think that linking the editions is very important. When I quoted this clause, there was a long silence followed by a promise to find out more and phone me back. They haven’t. I suspect that’s because they haven’t got an answer.

    Examining the database shows that the non-working of this clause leaves editions of some very high profile books deemed to be not commercially available although it’s easy to buy other editions in the shops.

  2. Read 3.2(d)(iii) Mistakes and it’s easy to see why Google doesn’t view this as a priority matter.

(1) In-Copyright Principal Work. If a Book’s Principal Work is not in the public domain under the Copyright Act in the United States and that Book is Commercially Available, then any other Book that has the same Principal Work (such as a previous edition) is also deemed to be Commercially Available, whether or not such other Book is at the time in question also Commercially Available.

Also posted in Article 03, Section 3.2, Section 3.2(d), Section 3.2(d)(i), Settlement | Comments closed